Re: math/R maintenance

2016-06-04 Thread Fernando Herrero Carrón
Hi, I submitted a new patch for math/R 3.3.0 ( https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207425). Could someone please take look at it? Thanks a lot! 2016-05-22 22:31 GMT+02:00 Fernando Herrero Carrón : > > El 22 may. 2016 11:59 a. m., "Kurt Jaeger"

Re: Facter 3.X questions

2016-06-04 Thread Kurt Jaeger
Hi! > Since Facter's move to a C/C++ codebase, a lot of facts have gone missing > on FreeBSD machines. As a dabbler in FreeBSD I want to help fix this! :) Very nice! I'm no puppet or facter user, but I can probably help with the ports part. Can you explain the state of factor for us ? We have

Facter 3.X questions

2016-06-04 Thread Peter M Souter
Hello Facter FreeBSD maintainers! Since Facter's move to a C/C++ codebase, a lot of facts have gone missing on FreeBSD machines. As a dabbler in FreeBSD I want to help fix this! :) I've opened a ticket to track it here ( https://tickets.puppetlabs.com/browse/FACT-1428) and I've been working on

Re: old ports/packages

2016-06-04 Thread Jeffrey Bouquet via freebsd-ports
On 06/ 3/16 08:17 AM, Franco Fichtner wrote: > Hi there, > >> On 01 Jun 2016, at 2:12 PM, Miroslav Lachman <000.f...@quip.cz> wrote: >> >> There is a main difference - if you upgraded from 9.2 to 9.3, you don't need >> to recompile (reinstall) all ports, but if you upgraded from 9.3 to 10.x you

Re: old ports/packages

2016-06-04 Thread Jeffrey Bouquet via freebsd-ports
On 06/ 3/16 08:17 AM, Franco Fichtner wrote: > Hi there, > >> On 01 Jun 2016, at 2:12 PM, Miroslav Lachman <000.f...@quip.cz> wrote: >> >> There is a main difference - if you upgraded from 9.2 to 9.3, you don't need >> to recompile (reinstall) all ports, but if you upgraded from 9.3 to 10.x you

Re: old ports/packages

2016-06-04 Thread Konstantin Belousov
On Sat, Jun 04, 2016 at 06:20:24PM +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote: > On 2016/06/04 16:14, William A. Mahaffey III wrote: > > One point of order if I may: It was stated earlier in the thread that > > binary compatibility throughout a major release cycle (X.n-R, as 'n' > > varies) is a specification.

Re: old ports/packages

2016-06-04 Thread Matthew Seaman
On 2016/06/04 16:14, William A. Mahaffey III wrote: > One point of order if I may: It was stated earlier in the thread that > binary compatibility throughout a major release cycle (X.n-R, as 'n' > varies) is a specification. That is not explicitly addressed in the > above URL's, as far as I can

Re: old ports/packages

2016-06-04 Thread William A. Mahaffey III
On 06/04/16 09:24, Matthew Seaman wrote: On 04/06/2016 14:50, Grzegorz Junka wrote: On 04/06/2016 13:45, Matthew Seaman wrote: On 03/06/2016 17:23, Bob Eager wrote: Why not just use odd numbered releases? That's what I do. They have a longer support cycle. Remember though that this model is

Re: old ports/packages

2016-06-04 Thread Matthew Seaman
On 04/06/2016 14:50, Grzegorz Junka wrote: > > On 04/06/2016 13:45, Matthew Seaman wrote: >> On 03/06/2016 17:23, Bob Eager wrote: >>> Why not just use odd numbered releases? That's what I do. They have a >>> longer support cycle. >> Remember though that this model is changing with 11.0 release.

Re: how do you force make install to overwrite conflicting files from another port?

2016-06-04 Thread Patrick Powell
On 06/03/16 10:53, Lowell Gilbert wrote: Patrick Powell writes: Suppose that you have a portA which is a dependency of a lot of other ports. You also have a portB which is a replacement/update/upgrade for portA. PortB provides replacements for the executables

Re: old ports/packages

2016-06-04 Thread Grzegorz Junka
On 04/06/2016 13:45, Matthew Seaman wrote: On 03/06/2016 17:23, Bob Eager wrote: Why not just use odd numbered releases? That's what I do. They have a longer support cycle. Remember though that this model is changing with 11.0 release. With the new model, it's the 11.x family as a whole that

Re: old ports/packages

2016-06-04 Thread Matthew Seaman
On 03/06/2016 17:23, Bob Eager wrote: > Why not just use odd numbered releases? That's what I do. They have a > longer support cycle. Remember though that this model is changing with 11.0 release. With the new model, it's the 11.x family as a whole that has the long term support and individual

x11/nvidia-driver and CURRENT: update results in full fan blow on MSI GTX 960 Gaming 4G

2016-06-04 Thread O. Hartmann
Three months ago I purchased a new GPU to replace a non-UEFI capable GTX560 Ti (MSI). The choice was the MSI GTX 960 Gaming 4G. Apart from the part, that this GPU doesn't show the performance boost on FreeBSD CURRENT, even with the most recent BLOB from nVidia, 367.18, I realized that after the